12. It is my professional appraisal opinion that the Restrictive Covenants are
unsuitable and their insertion onto the Subject Site is clearly a hindrance to the
natural Highest and Best Use of the Subject Site and thus, they artificially
suppress the Subject Site’s value.
13. The Proposed Development is consistent with the intent of the City of
Vaughan to create a Corporate Centre Node plan to become, over time, the central focus of the City of Vaughan, with potential to become the “downtown”
with a variety of higher density residential types. Accordingly, it is my professional appraisal opinion that the benefit to the Applicant (and two other development potential in the area) of deleting the Restrictive Covenants greatly
exceeds any possible detriment to the Respondents. This is particularly so
because the Proposed Development does not create any loss, disadvantage or
detriment to the surrounding properties, including the Respondents’ Lands.
14. Given that the proposal for the Subject Site will not only replace, but
increase the available hotel units, and, there remains two hotels on Interchange Way, there will be no loss of hotel availability.
 The only analysis that Ms. Hicks describes in her affidavit
of how Icona’s proposed redevelopment would affect the monetary value of the 274 lands is her reference in para. 9 to her
review of two other locations where intensification increased
adjacent land values. Ms. Hicks does not explain whether these
other locations involve circumstances that are comparable to the
circumstances in which 274 Canada finds itself, including, for
example, whether the adjacent landowners at the two other locations intended to develop their own lands in ways that would
compete with the uses of the developer who engaged in the development that resulted in intensification. On the evidence of
Ms. Hicks, there is no way for me to evaluate whether these two
other locations are truly comparable.
 Because Ms. Hicks’ opinion is almost entirely conclusory
and the limited analysis shown in her affidavit to support her
conclusion (the other two locations where, she says, intensification increased adjacent land values) does not allow me to determine whether they involve lands that are comparable to the 274
lands, I am unable to accept Ms. Hicks conclusion and find that
Icona’s proposed redevelopment most likely will result in betterment, or enrichment, to the values of the respondents’ lands.
 Even if I had found that Icona had proven on a balance of
probabilities that Icona’s proposed redevelopment would result in
an increase in the monetary value of the 274 lands, or at least no
decrease in the monetary value of these lands, I would not conclude that Icona has shown that the restrictive covenants are so
unsuitable as to be of no value and that their assertion by 274
Canada would be vexatious. The question of monetary value is
only part of the analysis.